• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Intel Rocket Lake CPU Appears with 6 Cores and 12 Threads

AleksandarK

Staff member
Joined
Aug 19, 2017
Messages
484 (0.47/day)
We have been hearing a lot about Intel's Rocket Lake lineup of processors. They are supposed to be a backport of Willow Cove 10 nm core, adapted to work on a 14 nm process for better yielding. Meant to launch sometime around late 2020 or the beginning of 2021, Rocket Lake is designed to work on the now existing LGA1200 socket motherboards, which were launched just a few days ago along with Intel Comet Lake CPUs. Rocket Lake is there to supply the desktop segment and satisfy user demand, in light of lacking 10 nm offers for desktop users. The 10 nm node is going to present only on mobile/laptop and server solutions before it comes to the desktop.

In the latest report on 3D Mark, the hardware leaker TUM APISAK has found a Rocket Lake CPU running the benchmark and we get to see first specifications of the Rocket Lake-S platform. The benchmark ran on 6 core model with 12 threads, that had a base clock of 3,5 GHz. The CPU managed to boost up to 4,09 GHz, however, we are sure that these are not final clocks and the actual product should have even higher frequencies. Paired with Gen12 Xe graphics, the Rocket Lake platform could offer a very nice alternative to AMD offerings if the backport of Willow Cove goes well. Even though it is still using a 14 nm node, performance would be good. The only things that would be sacrificed (from backporting) are die space and efficiency/heat.


View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Messages
4,664 (1.30/day)
Willow Cove may be backported from 14 but... Inside.... things will be built...

Differently.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
9,508 (3.76/day)
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
151 (2.13/day)
I feel this is what Intel should have done earlier, instead of continuously trying to fix their 10nm year after year. The exisiting Skylake architecture have been around for 5 generations (Intel 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), while 14nm was introduced in 2014 with Broadwell. Either they got overconfident or over complacent thinking that their competitors will not catch up with them in terms of fab or CPU architecture, or both. Now they are paying the price. While AMD and ARM have not done huge damage to them, they are slowly but surely chipping decent chunks away from them.

Always a good sign when you gotta backport your design to a older node because the new one sucks that badly.
Or the old one got optimized to the point that it is better in performance, though not so in efficiency. I doubt 10nm at this stage can hit the kind of clockspeed to deliver better performance over the older 14nm. If clockspeed is not that important, i.e. laptops and enterprise/servers, then 10nm makes sense. Currently these are the cases where Intel is implementing/ planning to implement 10nm CPUs.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2016
Messages
388 (0.30/day)
Location
NJ, USA
System Name Lightbringer
Processor Ryzen 7 2700X
Motherboard Asus ROG Strix X470-F Gaming
Cooling Enermax Liqmax Iii 360mm AIO
Memory G.Skill Trident Z RGB 32GB (8GBx4) 3200Mhz CL 14
Video Card(s) Sapphire RX 5700XT Nitro+
Storage Hp EX950 2TB NVMe M.2, HP EX950 1TB NVMe M.2, Samsung 860 EVO 2TB
Display(s) LG 34BK95U-W 34" 5120 x 2160
Case Lian Li PC-O11 Dynamic (White)
Power Supply BeQuiet Straight Power 11 850w Gold Rated PSU
Mouse Glorious Model O (Matte White)
Keyboard Royal Kludge RK71
Software Windows 10
How did i know many things before :)
I could be wrong, but according to the information presented here, doesn't this indicate that the ipc gain is basically nothing if they're purely depending on clocks to make up the performance difference?
 
Joined
Mar 21, 2016
Messages
363 (0.24/day)
I feel this is what Intel should have done earlier, instead of continuously trying to fix their 10nm year after year. The exisiting Skylake architecture have been around for 5 generations (Intel 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), while 14nm was introduced in 2014 with Broadwell. Either they got overconfident or over complacent thinking that their competitors will not catch up with them in terms of fab or CPU architecture, or both. Now they are paying the price. While AMD and ARM have not done huge damage to them, they are slowly but surely chipping decent chunks away from them.


Or the old one got optimized to the point that it is better in performance, though not so in efficiency. I doubt 10nm at this stage can hit the kind of clockspeed to deliver better performance over the older 14nm. If clockspeed is not that important, i.e. laptops and enterprise/servers, then 10nm makes sense. Currently these are the cases where Intel is implementing/ planning to implement 10nm CPUs.
Like I said always a good sign. Intel's 10nm has been bad for a long while. If it were good to begin with they wouldn't have stayed on 14nm for eternity and you'd be seeing many more 10nm products as opposed to a few chips here and there aimed at low power mobile devices.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
2,397 (1.97/day)
Processor i5-8400
Motherboard ASUS ROG STRIX Z370-I GAMING
Cooling Alpenföhn Black Ridge
Memory 2*16GB DDR4-3200 CL16
Video Card(s) Gainward GeForce RTX 2080 Phoenix
Storage 1TB Samsung 970 Pro, 2TB Intel 660p
Display(s) ASUS PG279Q, Eizo EV2736W
Case Dan Cases A4-SFX
Power Supply Corsair SF600
Mouse Logitech G700
Keyboard Corsair K60
I feel this is what Intel should have done earlier, instead of continuously trying to fix their 10nm year after year. The exisiting Skylake architecture have been around for 5 generations (Intel 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10), while 14nm was introduced in 2014 with Broadwell. Either they got overconfident or over complacent thinking that their competitors will not catch up with them in terms of fab or CPU architecture, or both.
Neither really. Their communication had broken down and teams were not cooperating or being truthful with one another. Foundry R&D team was constantly saying 10nm will be here soon and other teams took that as a legit statement. With the issues cropping up with 10nm, eventually the reality reached everyone but it took long years of confirmations from foundry that issues are being resolved and 10nm will be here soon. This was hinted at with the way the CEO was taken down and Intel's management reshuffled. Pretty much this exact story was shared by anonymous sources and stitched together by several tech journalists and youtubers. This hit public in the end of 2018. The timeframe in terms of CPUs is Coffee Lake Refresh (8000-9000 series).

Now, they finally knew what was going wrong but fixing it is not simple or quick. The lead time for a major change in CPUs is in years. A new CPU generation takes about a year to year and a half to do if not more. Somewhere in the mid to late 2018 Intel reportedly started a project to untie architecture from manufacturing process - this was never really the case with Intel CPUs as they had tight integration between architecture and manufacturing which had been a benefit for them. This rumored/reported project is part of why Rocket Lake rumors are what they are - Intel should by now be able to port CPU architecture to various manufacturing nodes including a newer architecture like Willow Cove back to 14nm.

If the rumors and reports from anonymous sources are true, this fits quite well with the timeline here.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2012
Messages
333 (0.11/day)
Location
Lithuania
Processor Intel Core i5 2500K @ 4.5 GHz
Motherboard MSI Z68A G43 G3
Cooling Enermax ETS T40-TA CPU cooler
Memory 2*4GB Patriot G2 Series RAM
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon HD 7790 Dual-X
Storage WD Caviar Blue 1TB
Display(s) Samsung SA 300 24" Full HD
Case Thermaltake Spacecraft VF-I +2x Noctua S12B FLX
Audio Device(s) Creative SB0770 X-Fi Xtreme Gamer
Power Supply Enermax Modu 87+ 900W 80+ Gold
Benchmark Scores IT CAN RUN MINECRAFT
If they will be realised in the late of this year that looks that current CPUs liftime is very short :D

Anyway if total performance will be higher compared with current chips, single core performance would be amazing
 
Joined
Feb 20, 2019
Messages
766 (1.62/day)
System Name PowerEdge R730 DRS Cluster
Processor 4x Xeon E5-2698 v3
Cooling Many heckin screamy bois
Memory 480GB ECC DDR4-2133
Video Card(s) Matrox G200eR2
Storage SD Card. Yep, really no other local storage.
Display(s) It's probably a couple of boring Dell Ultrasharps and a sacrificial laptop.
Case 39U 6-rack server room with HEVC and 44KVA UPS
Mouse Maybe
Keyboard Yes!
Software ESXi 6.5 U3
Benchmark Scores I once clocked a Celeron-300A to 564MHz on an Abit BE6 and it scored over 9000.
Always a good sign when you gotta backport your design to a older node because the new one sucks that badly.
I remember reading an Nvidia blog saying that they had to back-port designs to 40nm because the 28nm node was constrained, and they faced huge challenges getting the clockspeeds up on the larger node.

I don't know if was related, but perhaps that's why Nvidia's Kepler arhitecture was abandoned so fast and aged poorly - because maybe it wasn't the design Nvidia wanted but an ugly kludge to make the 28nm design work at 40nm...?
 

ppn

Joined
Aug 18, 2015
Messages
737 (0.42/day)
If they will be realised in the late of this year that looks that current CPUs liftime is very short :D

Anyway if total performance will be higher compared with current chips, single core performance would be amazing
Current chips, including all 7nm are already obsolete, 5nm has entered production, 1-2 years to appear in GPU,CPU.
and even 3nm very very soon. I mean it is just such a letdown to buy anything using DDR4 right now.

Just such a waste buying anything on 7,14nm. All the same, old beta testing devices.

The initial performance of Willow doesn't look promising. the physics score 3dmark is lower than 10400F.
I expected ground breaking performance, +40% or something.
 
Joined
Sep 28, 2012
Messages
343 (0.12/day)
System Name Potato PC
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 2600
Motherboard MSI B450M Mortar MAX
Cooling All stocks
Memory 16GB Team Delta RGB DDR4 3000Mhz
Video Card(s) MSI RX 5700XT Mech OC + AMD Radeon Pro W5100
Storage Samsung 850 Evo 500GB + 10TB Toshiba
Display(s) Viewsonic XG3240C
Case Cougar MG120-G
Audio Device(s) crappy onboard to heavily modded Logitech z5500
Power Supply Seasonic X650 Gold
Mouse Logitech G304
Keyboard Logitech G613
Benchmark Scores Who need bench when everything already fast?
So much for Comet Lake :D
 

bug

Joined
May 22, 2015
Messages
7,561 (4.10/day)
Processor Intel i5-6600k (AMD Ryzen5 3600 in a box, waiting for a mobo)
Motherboard ASRock Z170 Extreme7+
Cooling Arctic Cooling Freezer i11
Memory 2x16GB DDR4 3600 G.Skill Ripjaws V (@3200)
Video Card(s) EVGA GTX 1060 SC
Storage 500GB Samsung 970 EVO, 500GB Samsung 850 EVO, 1TB Crucial MX300 and 3TB Seagate
Display(s) HP ZR24w
Case Raijintek Thetis
Audio Device(s) Audioquest Dragonfly Red :D
Power Supply Seasonic 620W M12
Mouse Logitech G502 Proteus Core
Keyboard G.Skill KM780R
Software Arch Linux + Win10
I remember reading an Nvidia blog saying that they had to back-port designs to 40nm because the 28nm node was constrained, and they faced huge challenges getting the clockspeeds up on the larger node.

I don't know if was related, but perhaps that's why Nvidia's Kepler arhitecture was abandoned so fast and aged poorly - because maybe it wasn't the design Nvidia wanted but an ugly kludge to make the 28nm design work at 40nm...?
Happened to AMD, too. TSMC failed to get 22nm yields up, so both players had to implement 22nm designs using the 28nm node.
Nvidia chose to cut back on compute resources and implement TBR, AMD stuck with what they had.
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2011
Messages
100 (0.03/day)
Happened to AMD, too. TSMC failed to get 22nm yields up, so both players had to implement 22nm designs using the 28nm node.
Nvidia chose to cut back on compute resources and implement TBR, AMD stuck with what they had.
I remember reading an Nvidia blog saying that they had to back-port designs to 40nm because the 28nm node was constrained, and they faced huge challenges getting the clockspeeds up on the larger node.

I don't know if was related, but perhaps that's why Nvidia's Kepler arhitecture was abandoned so fast and aged poorly - because maybe it wasn't the design Nvidia wanted but an ugly kludge to make the 28nm design work at 40nm...?
You're both talking about the same event. Kepler was 28nm, anyways. Fermi was their only 40nm design and 28nm wouldn't exist for some time, yet.

On 28nm, both Nvidia and AMD chose to keep their designs on 28nm for two generations (Kepler and Maxwell for Nvidia). Nvidia did release 20nm products, but not as consumer GPUs (Tegra X1 in the Switch was an odd 20nm part). Due to TSMC's struggles with 28nm, then 20nm, Nvidia and AMD would both move some (though not all) production away from TSMC for their next consumer products. Nvidia went to former enemy Samsung and AMD went to former spinoff GloFo. TSMC would shore up their 20nm process with FinFETs (sparking a renaming to "16nm," despite keeping the same planar density for the most part) and all was well again.

It should be noted, this whole thing with TSMC and 28nm also drove Apple to go back to Samsung to dual source parts, too.

If I had to guess, TSMC 28nm caused a lot of partners to lose trust and faith in TSMC's delivery. This was around the time TSMC lost one of their process development chiefs to Samsung (now at SMIC), over internal politics at TSMC. Samsung's 14nm, developed under him, was quite successful. It took clients away from TSMC and was licensed to GloFo to rescue that dumpster fire for a few more years.
 
Joined
Jan 8, 2017
Messages
5,036 (4.04/day)
System Name Good enough
Processor AMD Ryzen R7 1700X - 4.0 Ghz / 1.350V
Motherboard ASRock B450M Pro4
Cooling Scythe Katana 4 - 3x 120mm case fans
Memory 16GB - Corsair Vengeance LPX
Video Card(s) OEM Dell GTX 1080
Storage 1x Samsung 850 EVO 250GB , 1x Samsung 860 EVO 500GB
Display(s) 4K Samsung TV
Case Zalman R1
Power Supply 500W
I honestly lost track completely of these many "something Lake" iterations and which are supposed to be a new architecture on 10nm and which are not.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
12,231 (5.85/day)
Location
Mars
Processor i7 8700k 4.7Ghz @ 1.26v
Motherboard AsRock Fatal1ty K6 Z370
Cooling beQuiet! Dark Rock Pro 3
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3200/C16
Video Card(s) MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X @ 2100/5500
Storage Samsung 850 EVO 1TB + Samsung 830 256GB + Crucial BX100 250GB + Toshiba 1TB HDD
Display(s) Eizo Foris FG2421
Case Fractal Design Define C TG
Power Supply EVGA G2 750w
Mouse Logitech G502 Protheus Spectrum
Keyboard Sharkoon MK80 (Brown)
Software W10 x64
Current chips, including all 7nm are already obsolete, 5nm has entered production, 1-2 years to appear in GPU,CPU.
and even 3nm very very soon. I mean it is just such a letdown to buy anything using DDR4 right now.

Just such a waste buying anything on 7,14nm. All the same, old beta testing devices.

The initial performance of Willow doesn't look promising. the physics score 3dmark is lower than 10400F.
I expected ground breaking performance, +40% or something.
Sometimes I wonder if you're that guy from Back to the Future :laugh:
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
9,508 (3.76/day)
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
How did i know many things before :)
Well, go on, answer the question, eh?

I could be wrong, but according to the information presented here, doesn't this indicate that the ipc gain is basically nothing if they're purely depending on clocks to make up the performance difference?
That about sums it up. It's not a serious IPC gain, it's just a refresh of clock speeds and a slight refinement to the code pipeline.
 
Joined
May 2, 2020
Messages
303 (8.42/day)
Location
Antares
System Name BloodRage
Processor R5 2600X PBO enabled
Motherboard Gigabyte Aorus B450 Elite
Cooling Arctic Esports Duo
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance 3000
Video Card(s) Gigabyte Aorus RX 5700-XT
Storage 120GB PNY SATA + 1TB WD Blue M.2
Display(s) HP 24FW
Case CiT cheap chassis
Audio Device(s) Creative Audigy FX
Power Supply Superflower Leadex III Gold 650w
Mouse Razer Basilisk
Keyboard Red Dragon Kumara
Software Win 10
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Messages
9,508 (3.76/day)
System Name GPD-Q9
Processor Rockchip RK-3288 1.8ghz quad core
Motherboard GPD Q9_V6_150528
Cooling Passive
Memory 2GB DDR3
Video Card(s) Mali T764
Storage 16GB Samsung NAND
Display(s) IPS 1024x600
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
2,567 (1.50/day)
Location
Argentina
System Name Ciel / Yukino
Processor AMD Ryzen R5 3400G / Intel Core i3 5005U
Motherboard Gigabyte B450 Aorus M / HP 240 G5
Cooling AM3 Wraith + Spire fan / Stock
Memory 2x 8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200MHz / 2x 4GB Hynix + Kingston DDR3L 1600MHz
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX Vega 11 + Nvidia Geforce GT 1030 2GB / Intel HD 5500
Storage SSD WD Green 240GB M.2 + HDD Toshiba 2TB / SSD Kingston A400 120GB SATA
Display(s) Samsung S22F350 @ 75Hz/ Integrated 1366x768 @ 94Hz
Case Generic / Stock
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC892 / Realtek ALC282
Power Supply Sentey XPP 525W / Power Brick
Mouse Logitech G203 / Elan Touchpad
Keyboard Generic / Stock
Software Windows 10 x64
Finally, after 5 years, something new.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2019
Messages
208 (0.50/day)
Always a good sign when you gotta backport your design to a older node because the new one sucks that badly.
Well unfortunately for AMD and their many .... overzealous fans (to say the least) this older node is still mostly better core per core than their spanking new 7nm one except of course in extreme core-count scenarios where 14nm's somewhat higher power consumption at high clocks starts to add up. Team red better bring 5nm EUV as soon as possible or they'll be toast once Intel finally moves to a proper new node...
 
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
268 (0.19/day)
Well unfortunately for AMD and their many .... overzealous fans (to say the least) this older node is still mostly better core per core than their spanking new 7nm one except of course in extreme core-count scenarios where 14nm's somewhat higher power consumption at high clocks starts to add up. Team red better bring 5nm EUV as soon as possible or they'll be toast once Intel finally moves to a proper new node...
Better per core?

Nope. Intel is slower multithreaded and draws more power per core. The only thing they win in is applications that use a handful of cores at high frequency, which is increasingly a dying breed in a world of 8 core laptops and 16 core desktops.
 
Joined
Mar 28, 2020
Messages
151 (2.13/day)
Well unfortunately for AMD and their many .... overzealous fans (to say the least) this older node is still mostly better core per core than their spanking new 7nm one except of course in extreme core-count scenarios where 14nm's somewhat higher power consumption at high clocks starts to add up. Team red better bring 5nm EUV as soon as possible or they'll be toast once Intel finally moves to a proper new node...
Overzealous fan? I am not sure who you are implying here when you sound like one yourself.

If you look at a one dimensional metric, then yes, Intel's 14nm is able to clock faster than a TSMC 7nm. But at the expense of it taking more than 2x the power. Clock for clock, Intel's ageing Skylake architecture will lag behind, thus the desperate need to increase clockspeed to retain the single core performance crown. Unfortunately, the earliest you can see a 7nm from Intel could be late next year if not the year after, assuming no delays. The current Intel 10nm appears to be completely messed up. While Intel claims that its turning out better than they expected, I am not sure how high is the expectation now after the many years of delay.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
6,457 (1.28/day)
System Name ICE-QUAD // ICE-CRUNCH
Processor Q6600 // 2x Xeon 5472
Memory 2GB DDR // 8GB FB-DIMM
Video Card(s) HD3850-AGP // FireGL 3400
Display(s) 2 x Samsung 204Ts = 3200x1200
Audio Device(s) Audigy 2
Software Windows Server 2003 R2 as a Workstation now migrated to W10 with regrets.
The takeaway from all this discussion is that while Intel keep “lake” in their naming, the architecture and fab process is full of compromises and yesteryear. So i’ll be Waiting for either intel “Estuary”, “ocean” or “river” depending on which way the Marketing teams decide to go after “lake”. Unfortunately, looks like 2023 or later...
 
Top